Radinovich, others show courage of conviction in marriage vote

Yesterday the Minnesota House of Representatives voted to extend marriage rights to all Minnesotans, including gay and lesbian couples, by a vote of 75-59. Four Republicans supported the measure and two Democratic-Farmer-Laborites opposed it, making this a bipartisan split.

All northern Minnesota DFLers supported the bill, including several in districts that have recently opposed gay marriage. Some districts, such as those on the Mesabi Iron Range, are used to splitting with their representatives over social issues. But some northern Minnesota reps took a real political risk by voting their conscience on marriage equality.

Of all the northern Minnesota lawmakers who voted for passage of marriage equality, Rep. Joe Radinovich (DFL-Crosby) probably took the biggest political gamble. Sixty-one percent of his Aitkin and Cuyuna Iron Range district supported the ban on gay marriage last fall. This MPR story clearly indicates the difficult task he has heading back home after the session adjourns in coming days.

But I found Radinovich’s reasoning on the issue to be among the best arguments. (His comments are included in the debate that took place yesterday afternoon). Time will tell what the voters of his district really feel to be the most important issues to vote on, but Radinovich demonstrated real conviction and compassion in his remarks.


  1. Mr. Radinovich told his constituents to go take a hike on this vote. Conviction in pursuit of an evil policy is an unfortunate thing.

  2. Equal rights is pursuit of an evil policy?
    What ARE you smoking, Mr Gray?

  3. Rep. Radinovich is a representative of all the people in his district..and was an utter failure in carrying out his job, representing the people.

    He knew going into this legislative session the majority of the people in his district DO NOT support gay/lesbian, bisexual or trans-gender marriage. He and the rest of his high and mighty elite cronies in St. Paul think they “know better” than the lowly gun toting / Bible carrying common people in his district. It’s repulsive to them to think they now (through him) support women marrying women and men marrying men. They don’t. Shame on him..

  4. The majority didn’t want slaves freed either, but this is different ,of course. Do either of you seriously think if gays aren’t allowed to marry it would stamp out their homosexuality?
    The bible says all kinds of ghastly things, but the Conservatives’ only focus is on same sex relationships. Why is that?

  5. Jackie, that is sufficiently incoherent as to render a reply more work than it is worth except to say:

    1. Marriage is what it is. The legislature can’t redefine it and undermines its authority by attempting to pretend that it can.

    2. I don’t know any Christians who limit their embrace of the Bible to sexual issues. And it is filled with light which is why the darkness rages.

  6. BTW, Aaron is right, it was a courageous act. I’ll give him credit for acting on his principles and not in a narrow tactical fashion. But as I noted above courage in the service of an evil idea is unfortunate at best.

  7. Some of you sure do have boogie men under your beds.
    Those awful gays are coming to get you . Better run and hide…

  8. Some of you sure do have boogie men under your beds.

    Jackie, the sophistication of your analysis leaves me at a loss for words, at least momentarily.

  9. And your rebuttal is always the bible. Now, there is real sophistication. LOL !

  10. And your rebuttal is always the bible. Now, there is real sophistication. LOL !

    We built a civilization around it which has protected you. Try doing that with “Some of you sure do have boogie men under your beds.”

  11. Let us consider using your sophisticated moral foundation Jackie…What is it again? Share it with us.

  12. I didn’t claim to have a sophisticated moral foundation, but I do know justice when I see it. In this case it is giving all citizens equal rights…..period.

  13. Jackie…
    You proclaim no moral basis to judge yet see fit to do so. You claim to seek justice but without any center point with which to balance the scale. You have no definable compass to guide yourself but demand your elusive standard be followed by all.

    To that I say, the denial by the majority of Minnesotans to the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice. On the contrary, justice requires it.

    I can certainly embrace the dignity of homosexual persons and condemn all forms of unjust (even using your intangible definition) discrimination, harassment or abuse against them. Yet you deny me the right to call my marriage to a female a marriage, as it has been for centuries. Now that’s unjust…in Iron Range terms, simply stupid.

  14. I did not claim NO moral right. Stop this silly game of twisting.
    And why you entertain the following idea is truly beyond me, but then….
    “Yet you deny me the right to call my marriage to a female a marriage, as it has been for centuries. “
    That is beyond ridiculous, but I think you know that.
    You called it…simply stupid.

  15. Wow Jackie…Your words just hit me like a cool, clean fresh washcloth on my face.

    I’ve realized albeit too late that discussing issues with someone as ungrounded as you is like speaking to a child. Your thoughts are like the wind, they blow where they wish. We don’t know where they come from or where they’ll go next.

    Your saving grace is you are a child of God. May he be with you..

Speak Your Mind


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.